Washington--A Senate subcommittee last week kicked off Congressional
debate on one of this session's hottest issues with a hearing on a
revamped version of the "act for better child care."

"This bipartisan package, the product of literally dozens of hours
of negotiation, combines the best of the child-care legislation
introduced in the [last] Congress," said Senator Christopher J. Dodd,
Democrat of Connecticut.

The bill would authorize $2.5 billion to subsidize child care for
low-income families and fund initiatives to increase the supply of
providers and improve their training and salaries. It would also set
minimum quality and safety standards.

Mr. Dodd and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, announced that they
were co-sponsoring the bill, which they introduced as S 5. Mr. Hatch is
the ranking Republican on the Labor and Human Resources Committee, and
Mr. Dodd is chairman of its subcommittee on children, family, drugs,
and alcoholism, which held the hearing.

The senators announced that they also would co-sponsor a measure,
proposed by Mr. Hatch last year, that would provide increased tax
credits for families with children. They said they intend to combine
the two proposals if and when the Senate Finance Committee approves the
tax-credit measure, which has yet to be introduced.

"I am not co-sponsoring this bill because I think it is a perfect
solution to the myriad of problems related to child care, but because I
want to work in a bipartisan fashion to develop responsible
legislation," Mr. Hatch said, noting that he still disagreed with some
of the abc provisions.

Mr. Hatch also said his participation did not guarantee that other
Republican leaders, particularly President Bush, would support the
final product. He said he had "chatted" with Mr. Bush and his staff but
''can't say what their intentions are."

Issues 'Are the Same'

Some new wrinkles have been added to last year's proposal, including
programs to aid businesses in setting up child-care programs, give
grants and loans to new providers, and create state insurance pools for
child-care providers. Another would allow aid to flow to adult
relatives who care for eligible children if their homes meet state
standards.

The changes are not likely to satisfy organizations--including the
National Education Association, the National pta, and some religious
groups--that originally backed the bill but pulled out of the
coalition.

The groups argue that its provisions allowing aid to religious
child-care providers could result in discrimination and
unconstitutional public aid for religious activities. The bill also
allows states to distribute aid in the form of vouchers, as well as in
contracts with providers, and education groups fear this could pave the
way for vouchers in school programs.

The dissidents were conspicuously absent from a list of supporters
that was passed out last week by the abc Coalition, which includes the
American Federation of Teachers.

"The issues are the same," said Maribeth Oakes, a policy analyst for
the National pta.

Varied Plans Predicted

Michael B. Edwards, manager of Congressional relations for the nea,
agreed, but expressed hope that they could be resolved.

"It's fairly clear that this year--unlike last year, when one
proposal was 'take it or leave it'--there will be a variety of
approaches and Congress will strive to put together the best parts of
each of them," he said.

Mr. Edwards, Ms. Oakes, and Bruce Hunter, governmental-relations
manager for the American Association of School Administrators, said
they favor HR 3, the child-care proposal introduced last month by
Representative Augustus F. Hawkins, chairman of the House Education and
Labor Committee.

The California Democrat's bill would expand Head Start to include
child care for both eligible children and children from families
with8slightly more income; fund school-based programs that could
include before- and after-school care for children of school age and
younger; and establish an abc-like program for children under age
3.

The education advocates noted that HR 3 would require adherence to
Head Start anti-discrimination rules that cover religious
discrimination. And they said limiting the abc program to very young
children lessened their concerns about vouchers and aid to religious
organizations.

They also applauded the specific inclusion of schools and a
provision requiring full funding of Head Start before the new programs
could receive appropriations.

The advocates also supported "Smart Start," which Senator Edward M.
Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, reintroduced last week as S 123.
The bill would fund educational programs that would be available to all
4-year-olds on a sliding-fee basis, with poor families paying
nothing.

Aides said Mr. Kennedy, chairman of the full Labor and Human
Resources Committee, planned to attach Smart Start to the abc bill.

Helen Blank, director of child care for the Children's Defense Fund,
a leader of the abc Coalition, said her organization was "open to"
Smart Start and some proposals in HR 3, but would stick with the abc
bill.

"This is the bill we've worked on and it addresses individual
communities' needs," Ms. Blank said, while "the Hawkins approach means
more decisionmaking at the federal level."

Most witnesses at last week's hearing supported the abc bill, but
others opposed setting federal standards for child care at all. That
view drew the comment from Mr. Dodd that it would be no different than
setting minimum standards for the safety of drinking water.

Three parents of children who were killed or injured while in
child-care facilities made that argument more dramatically, contending
that the tragedies could have been prevented if providers were screened
and required to complete adequate training.

Margaret A. Lucas, chief of child-development services for the U.S.
Army, said the Army's success in setting uniform standards for
child-care facilities used by military families dispels "the myth that
use of standards automatically means increased costs and layers of
bureaucracy."

But Mr. Hatch reiterated his opposition to federal child-care
standards, arguing that parents should be the arbiters of quality and
that state regulation would be preferable to blanket federal rules.

That position, which has been echoed by many Republicans, was also
supported at the hearing by Senator Daniel Coats of Indiana, the new
ranking Republican on Mr. Dodd's subcommittee; Scott McCallum, the
Republican lieutenant governor of Wisconsin; and former Undersecretary
of Education Gary L. Bauer, president of the Family Research Council, a
conservative think tank.

Mr. Bauer contended that federal standards would increase the cost
of child care and that no standards could insure against abuse. He
backed a tax credit for all parents, arguing that it is the only
approach that does not penalize parents who stay home with their
children.

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.